How to interpret a Summation and Cartesian product together in a formula

AI Thread Summary
The equation presented, \sum_{i=1}^n k_i \Pi_{i=1}^n O_i(\mu), is considered ambiguous due to the use of the same index "i" for both the summation and product. A clearer notation suggested is \sum_{i=1}^n k_i \Pi_{j=1}^n O_j(\mu), allowing for the separation of the sum and product. This separation enables the expression to be rewritten as \left(\sum_{i=1}^n k_i\right)\left(\Pi_{j=1}^n O_j(\mu)\right). The discussion emphasizes the importance of distinct indexing for clarity in mathematical expressions. Proper notation is crucial for accurate interpretation of mathematical formulas.
TheMarksman
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
Hi all,

\sum_{i=1}^n k_i \Pi_{i=1}^n O_i(\mu)

How to interpret this equation.
 
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Actually the way it is written makes it ambiguous. The index should not be "i" in both. My best guess is that better notation would be
\sum_{i=1}^n k_i \Pi_{j=1}^n O_j(\mu)
in which case we could take the product outside the sum so it would be just
\left(\sum_{i=1}^n k_i\right)\left(\Pi_{j=1}^n O_j(\mu)\right)
and now, since the sum and product are separated, we could write that as
\left(\sum_{i=1}^n k_i\right)\left(\Pi_{i=1}^n O_i(\mu)\right)

Perhaps that is what is meant.
 
Thank you so much HallsofIvy.
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top